# Uplifting news: humanism, tolerance, science, secularity, etc

140 posts / 0 new

@Nyarlathotep Pretty amazing. It's even more clear to me that you are indeed intellectually isolated.

Point 1: Chance cannot cause anything. Your statement is null. I'm still looking for that example of something that began to exist without a cause.

Point 2: Maybe you don't care what Einstein's opinion is, however General Relativity does state the universe began to exist.

Point 3. If the Big Bang happened the universe began. Simple.

Point 4. Not a red herring at all. If the second law of thermodynamics is true: The universe cannot be infinitely old. One can only conclude that the universe had a beginning.

Point 5: Not a red herring: If the universe is expanding from a single point it had a beginning.

Point 6. Alan Guth etc does indeed prove that the universe had to start with an initial singularity, and hence must have a beginning.

---------
Premise 1 "Whatever begins to exist has a cause;":

You have not refuted it. Please provide evidence that "chance" can cause something to happen or give an example of something that has begun to exist without a cause.

Premise 2 "The universe began to exist;":

My evidence does indeed show the universe began. Even if I got all of them wrong except for one, I have good evidence that the universe began. There are no red herrings here.

MathJax.Hub.Config({tex2jax: {inlineMath: [['$','$'], ['\$','\$']]}});

1)

The transmission of a photon through two polarizers misaligned by an angle of $\frac{\pi}{4}$ from each other. Any photon passing the first sheet will have a probability to pass the second sheet that is a function of the angle between the sheets: $P(\theta)=cos^2{\theta}$ or in this case 50%. Let's say photon A is blocked by the 2nd sheet (event A), but photon B passes the 2nd sheet (event B). Now we need a cause for event B that didn't cause event A. Our only option here is chance, but according to you: "chance cannot cause anything"; which leaves event B with no cause.

2)

miracleman12 - General Relativity does state the universe began to exist.

This is just not true. In fact, the first thing general relativity was used for (by Einstein) was to construct an static universe model (eternal universe). There are lots of know solutions to general relativity, some of them having beginnings, some of them do not.

3)

miracleman12 - If the Big Bang happened the universe began.

If by big bang you mean the homogeneous isotropic expansion of the universe, that is far from clear. If by the big bang you mean the creation of the universe, well then you are just begging the question.

4)

miracleman12 - If the second law of thermodynamics is true: The universe cannot be infinitely old.

The second law is only true most of the time, it is statistical only. It is easily violated on the small scale.

Additionally: even if it was always true, it would not demand a start. It would just demand the entropy in the past be lower or equal to today. For example it could approach 0 as t approach negative infinity.

5)

miracleman12 - If the universe is expanding from a single point it had a beginning.

Please explain---in detail---how expansion from a single point ensures a beginning.
6)

miracleman12 - Alan Guth etc does indeed prove that the universe had to start with an initial singularity, and hence must have a beginning.

VS

Borde, Guth, Vilenkin - Whatever the possibilities for the boundary, it is clear that unless the averaged expansion condition can somehow be avoided for all past-directed geodesics, inflation alone is not sufficient to provide a complete description of the Universe, and some new physics is necessary in order to determine the correct conditions at the boundary. This is the chief result of our paper.

@Nyarlathotep. Very good. I'm glad you decided to come down from the peanut gallery. I'll do my best.

Point 1:

Chance is merely a description of what happens under certain conditions. Chance is probability. We may not understand probability on the quantum level, but certainly probability didn't do anything. I'd say that ascribing chance as the cause would be ad hoc. I would liken it to saying, the law of gravity created matter. You can read more about Causality and Chance in the "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy" if you are interested.

Point 2.

If you will remember correctly. Einstein had to add a "fudge factor" in his original theory to support the principle of an eternal universe. General relativity says this: In the beginning, everything in existence is thought to have occupied a single infinitely dense point, or singularity. Only after this point began to expand in a "Big Bang" did the universe officially begin. (phys.org) Sure there are other theories. Einstein's is the accepted one that is supported by evidence.

Point 3:

The common view of the Big Bang is: The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began. At its simplest, it talks about the universe as we know it starting with a small singularity, then inflating over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today. (space.com)

Point 4:

Well, if the universe was infinite past time it should have already arrived at a state of thermodynamic equilibrium. As the law states, the universe is cooling. You would be very hard pressed to find a astrophysicist, cosmologist that would agree with you that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics doesn't imply a beginning.

Point 5:

I think I will let Stephen Hawking summarize it for you: "All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted."

Point 6:

I'd say you are misinterpreting your quoted statement. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem proves that classical spacetime, under a single, very general condition, cannot be extended to past infinity but must reach a boundary at some time in the finite past. Now either there was something on the other side of that boundary or not. If not, then that boundary just is the beginning of the universe. If there was something on the other side, then it will be a quantum region described by the yet to be discovered theory of quantum gravity. In that case, Vilenkin says, it will be the beginning of the universe. Either way the universe began to exist.

Vilenkin says this: "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning(Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176)."

miracleman12 - General relativity says this: In the beginning, everything in existence is thought to have occupied a single infinitely dense point, or singularity.

General relativity "says" no such thing. Some solutions imply a beginning, some do not.

miracleman12 - The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem proves that classical spacetime, under a single, very general condition, cannot be extended to past infinity but must reach a boundary at some time in the finite past. Now either there was something on the other side of that boundary or not.

VS

miracleman12 - Alan Guth etc does indeed prove that the universe had to start with an initial singularity, and hence must have a beginning.

What a difference a day makes!

@mm12
"We may not understand probability on the quantum level"

No. You do not understand probability at the quantum level.

Here is a little test.

What is Bell's Theorem and what does tell us about quantum mechanics?

@ miracleman12

I've been trying to avoid this discussion since it is COMPLETELY off topic...

- "@Nyarlathotep Time to put up or shut up."

Some exaggerated self-opinion... You don't get to tell someone else on the forum to shut up.

You're the one making claims, and at the same time you're the one demanding evidence against your claims. What the...? It's the other way around, you know.
If I claim that the Smurf's exists, and you say "No, they don't", I don't get to demand that you produce the evidence against my claim. It's the other way around.

You're free to believe that your argument holds water, but you can't ask for evidence against such a speculative and abstract claim.

You're obviously deeply committed to that belief and not willing to revise your own beliefs. So other than you trying to "win" an already worn out argument, what's the point of this discussion?

Your argument is from speculation alone, no evidence to back it up, just attitude. Not a single shred of evidence, nada, zip. Most of us don't even find your reasoning logical. Where is your evidence that the Universe, as you say, "began"? Where is your evidence that it's not just one of many iterations? Where is your evidence that it's not just one out of trillions of Universes? Where's your evidence that the Universe didn't just spawn out of an unknown state that is beyond our current understanding?

@The Pragmatic

Interesting. Just engage the argument.

Nyarlathotep is perfectly capable to deciding if he wants to engage the argument or banter with insignificant details from the peanut gallery. I'm pretty sure, he doesn't need you to come to his aid.

I'm pretty sure my logic is solid with both arguments I stated. If you don't think my logic is solid please show me. I'll restate the arguments for your convenience:

Argument 1:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
2. The universe began to exist;
Therefore:
3. The universe has a cause.

Argument 2:
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
Therefore
3. God exists.

I'm also pretty sure that I have given good evidence to support my premises that are not opinions and not attitude. Please show how my evidence does not support my premises.

I believe that it would be your opinion that this argument is "warn out". It might be for you. There may however be persons on this forum that have never heard my arguments and have only ever read Christopher Hitchens if that.

To engage some of your specific claims:

"Not a single shred of evidence, nada, zip"
So you don't think General Relativity etc isn't evidence or the other 4 bits I'll list below?

"Most of us don't even find your reasoning logical."
As I stated. Please show how my arguments stated above are not logical. I think you will find the logic air tight.

"Where is your evidence that the Universe, as you say, "began"? "
1. General Relativity
2. The Big Bang
3. Second law of thermodynamics
4. Hubble's discovery of the red shift
5. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem

"Where is your evidence that it's not just one of many iterations?"
Even if there is multiple universes, according to Borde-Guth-Vilenkin, there still has to be a beginning. Where is your evidence that there is more than one universe?

"Where's your evidence that the Universe didn't just spawn out of an unknown state that is beyond our current understanding?"
We have no physical evidence of what came before the Big Bang. What we can understand by deductive reasoning is that what spawned the universe had to be outside of time and space (time and space didn't exist before the Big Bang), had to be very powerful to even cause the Big Bang, and had to make a decision about the Big Bang to begin (otherwise it would have never started. I'm certain this "state" is beyond our complete understanding, but it must have these 4 properties.

If you can show that both of my arguments are nonsense, I'd be happy live in nihilism.

@ MiracleMan12

I'm quite convinced that you are "gabriel", trying to start up a new conversation. A lot of telltale signs point to that.
However, even if that's not the case, you show the very same blind acceptance of your own logic assumptions and complete blindness to countering points, as gabriel did.

So thank you, but no thank you. It would only be a waste of time.

I haven't forced anyone into responding to my arguments or comments. Most everyone I've engaged has been pleasant and open to discussion... I've had some good back and forth.

I don't mind if you don't want to engage the arguments. That's up to you.

I don't even know what a "gabriel" is... Maybe something to do with a sledge hammer?

Importantly: I assure you, my logical assumptions are indeed logical in the best way I can reason. I'm not even sure you can attach the word blind to logical. If you think I'm not being logical, I would appreciate you pointing it out. I'm fairly well trained in logic, but I am certainly capable of making logical mistakes, but I do try to avoid fallacies. If I've made one or two, I'd like to know about it.

So which counter points do you think I have dismissed unfairly? I'm happy to argue my point of view from a logical stand point. I certainly use the best science that I know. I don't know everything. I've been known to make errors with English too. I'm not a Biblical theologian (I'm not trained in that) so I usually won't argue that with non-believers -- there's no point. I am quite familiar with philosophy and will engage those points. Clearly, I am here for amusement and some stimulating conversation, I probably won't engage arguments with the detail and care I might in a more formal setting, so I may might not be clear sometimes. My view is not myopic and I appreciate the intelligence of people with a different view than mine and do try to respect them if I am respected as well. I know that is challenging for some militant atheist. Shouts from the peanut gallery are not respectful.

Ultimately, It doesn't matter what you think of me. The arguments and the concepts are bigger than both of us.

I understand your apprehension of arguing with me.

@mm12
"2. The universe began to exist;"

You do not know that. That is not what science says. I can not respect you if you do not know what science does and does not say. Science does not know what happened before the big bang. It does not claim that there was no universe before the big bang nor does it claim that there was a universe before the big bang. Modern science does not know. Period.

@an_order_of_mag

I'm pretty sure I do know that the universe began to exist. Try these points (feel free to look them up):

1. General Relativity - Einstein even said himself that believing in his own theory forced him to believe in God.
2. The Big Bang
3. Second law of thermodynamics
4. Hubble's discovery of the red shift - The universe is without question expanding from a single point.
5. Alan Guth's (et al) discovery that any universe that has been expanding cannot be eternal and must have an absolute beginning.

You are right. Science doesn't know what happened before the Big Bang. Chances are, science will never know what happened before the Big Bang. Here's why: The physical universe did not exist before the Big Bang. Science can only measure physical "things." Science cannot say anything about metaphysical "things." That leaves us with philosophy which can say something about metaphysical "things."

We know the universe began to exist. Period.

@mm12

"1. General Relativity - Einstein even said himself that believing in his own theory forced him to believe in God."

The logical fallacy there is appeal to authority. And beside you will loose using appeal to authority because members of the national academy of scientists overwhelmingly do not believe in god. The number of science authorities on the disbelief side out number on the belief side. Further, there are big things where Einstein was wrong.

"2. The Big Bang"

The big bounce.

"3. Second law of thermodynamics"

I do not understand how 2nd law entails creation of the universe. Can you explain?

However the first law says matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Which entails the matter/energy in the universe was never created.

"4. Hubble's discovery of the red shift - The universe is without question expanding from a single point."

What is the difference between your number 2 and this? Honestly it makes me think you do not know what the big bang is.

But again big bounce.

"5. Alan Guth's (et al) discovery that any universe that has been expanding cannot be eternal and must have an absolute beginning."

I need to look in to this one.

@an_order_of_mag I'm really enjoying the back and forth with you. I appreciate your persistence. I'll do my best to answer your objections.

1. It's not an appeal to authority because I'm appealing to the Theory of General Relativity. The part about Einstein is an anecdote (maybe even rhetoric) about Einstein and does nothing for the claim.

2. The common view of the Big Bang is: The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began. At its simplest, it talks about the universe as we know it starting with a small singularity, then inflating over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today. (space.com)

3. Basically, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says that universe is expanding into a thermodynamic equilibrium. This would be a heat death. Or you could say that all the energy and matter started out tightly packed and over time this energy and matter is separating.

On the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. That would be correct, there is nothing physical than can create or destroy matter and energy. If matter and energy where created, it would have to be by something metaphysical.

4. Hubble's Law which is evidence of the Big Bang (and not the Big Bang) states this:

1. Objects observed in deep space (extragalactic space, 10 megaparsecs (Mpc) or more) are found to have a Doppler shift interpretable as relative velocity away from Earth;
2. This Doppler-shift-measured velocity, of various galaxies receding from the Earth, is approximately proportional to their distance from the Earth for galaxies up to a few hundred megaparsecs away.

5. You will find it under Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem Here it is in a nut shell: The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem proves that classical spacetime, under a single, very general condition, cannot be extended to past infinity but must reach a boundary at some time in the finite past. Now either there was something on the other side of that boundary or not. If not, then that boundary just is the beginning of the universe. If there was something on the other side, then it will be a quantum region described by the yet to be discovered theory of quantum gravity. In that case, Vilenkin says, it will be the beginning of the universe. Either way the universe began to exist.

Vilenkin says this: "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning(Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176)."

You kept say "Big Bounce". I guess you mean the Oscillating Model. Check this out:
Such a theory is extraordinarily speculative, but again there were metaphysical motivations for adopting this model.24 The prospects of the Oscillating Model were severely dimmed in 1970, however, by Penrose and Hawking's formulation of the Singularity Theorems which bear their names.25 The theorems disclosed that under very generalized conditions an initial cosmological singularity is inevitable, even for inhomogeneous and non-isotropic universes. Reflecting on the impact of this discovery, Hawking notes that the Hawking-Penrose Singularity Theorems "led to the abandonment of attempts (mainly by the Russians) to argue that there was a previous contracting phase and a non-singular bounce into expansion. Instead almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang.

MathJax.Hub.Config({tex2jax: {inlineMath: [['$','$'], ['\$','\$']]}});

miracleman12 - On the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. That would be correct, there is nothing physical than can create or destroy matter and energy.

Physics fail. Matter is created and and destroyed all the time. In fact the medical procedure called a PET scan involves the destruction of matter. Furthermore the 1st law demands that $\dot{E} = 0$; which does allow for energy to be created or destroyed, so long as it is offset by other changes to preserve $\dot{E} = 0$.

That's interesting I was always under the impression that matter and energy couldn't be created or destroyed. Are there any other unreliable Laws in Physics?

@Nyarlathotep I think I got it right.

The first law of thermodynamics doesn't actually specify that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but instead that the total amount of energy in a closed system cannot be created nor destroyed (though it can be changed from one form to another)
(www.physicscentral.com)

First you tell us matter can't be created and destroyed:

miracleman12 - On the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. That would be correct, there is nothing physical than can create or destroy matter and energy.

miracleman12 - The first law of thermodynamics doesn't actually specify that matter can neither be created nor destroyed

Then you have to audacity to claim you got it right:

miracleman12 - I think I got it right

@Nyarlathotep Yep I do have audacity. You conveniently left off the last part of that second statement. Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed it can only be changed. It's only a technicality and does nothing to defeat my point. Sorry you can't see that.

"total amount of energy in a closed system cannot be created nor destroyed (though it can be changed from one form to another)"

miracleman12 - Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed it can only be changed

Still false. Matter is routinely created and destroyed in the laboratory. Furthermore it is mathematics behind it that I worked on in University. You are confusing mass, energy, and matter. Here is a Feynman diagram illustrating the destruction of some matter:

miracleman12 - total amount of energy in a closed system cannot be created nor destroyed

Now you are just talking crazy. The total amount is a number, what would it even mean to destroy a number or create a number?

@Nyarlathotep I'll concede. The first law of thermodynamics isn't a law at all. Or is it? Please clarify.

@Nyarlathotep I'll restate it so you can better understand.

On the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. That would be correct, there is nothing physical than can change the total amount of matter and energy in the universe.

miracleman12 - there is nothing physical than can change the total amount of matter and energy in the universe.

As I've said before; the total amount of matter in the universe can and does change all the time. Again; you are confusing matter, mass, and energy.

@mm12

"What ever caused the universe to begin has to be: Outside of time. Outside of space. Very powerful. And personal. Those are four requirements. What does that sound like to you? Can you think of other criteria that would satisfy how the universe came into being? "

Yes I can. Criteria so complex we have no way to describe or understand it, so incomprehensible it is as calculus is to a dog and any attempt to deal with it is way beyond human reasoning, emotion, logic, science or any other tool humans have access to, even spirit.

If you can argue for a god to be the maker of the universe, I can make a super god that is the maker of your god that is --get this-- a super god outside of being outside of time and the others you mention. So complex that the list of criteria to describe it is infinite. But you may argue "ah! occam's razor says we can eliminate the super god." I would agree. And further occam's razor says we can get rid of the minor god. The universe exists that is about it. How it got here is opinion.

It is the age old question "what is the prime mover?". Who knows? Maybe it has always been here. And if you really need god just call the universe god and be done with it. I believe muslims have a strain of thought that all of this is happening in the mind of god.

@an_order_of_mag I was pretty sure you were playing coy with me. Of course you were. Let's see if I can address some of your concerns.

I'd say you are correct. You did arrive at your point by "opinion". I arrived at mine by logic and reasoning. I'm sure that you can see the difference. But, I will give you one thing:

Without God there is no logic or reason. So your absurd assertion plays perfectly into that.

As I always say, it's my opinion that any opinion can be dismissed by another. I've just dismissed your opinion. My opinion in that you are wrong. Wait, I can do better, your argument is not logical -- it does indeed violate Occam's razor and violates the broader principle of philosophy.

@an_order_of_mag One last thing.

If the universe began, then it cannot be God.

I wouldn't agree much with muslims. But I would say, if this is all happening in the mind of God, it wouldn't be much different if you say that the mind of God caused all this.

The question is: What does reality tell us?

@Miracleman12:
"Outside of time. Outside of space. Very powerful. And personal. Those are four requirements. What does that sound like to you?"

That sounds like four arbitrary notions that you plucked out of your head.

You postulate a god as the prime cause and call quantum mechanics intellectual laziness? So where did your god come from? It can't exist without a cause or a beginning. Or can it?

@Algebe Not arbitary or ad hoc at all: If it was before the universe began, it had to be outside of time and space because there was no time and space. It had to be very powerful to even cause the the Big Bang much less create all the matter and energy (see the laws of thermodynamics). Had to be personal, because a mind was required to make the decision to start or the expansion would have never began.

Quantum mechanics isn't laziness. The idea that quantum mechanics caused the universe to begin is. I think we went over the absurdity of an infinite regress before. Logic requires that there be at least one Uncaused Cause that has no beginning and is uncaused.

I stumbled upon a piece of news (more than a year old) that I didn't catch when it happend: https://www.gofundme.com/w5dt53w

Armin Navabi used gofundme, to help a girl escape from Saudi Arabia. I remember that I saw the first picture she posted from Kaba, but I didn't hear that she got help to get out.

Lovely...

Puerto Rico - Gubernatorial Candidate Alexandra Lúgaro reveals that she is atheistic. In a country that is: Catholic (85%), Protestants (8%), non religious (2.3%), and others (3%). That's one bold woman.

## Pages

Donating = Loving

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.